strategic finance plan - government finance … county schools (fl) strategic... · leading our...

STRATEGIC FINANCE PLAN

Submitted by the

Lake County Schools Leadership Team

2017 –2019

Final Plan January 25, 2016

LAKE

COUNTY

SCHOOLS Leading our Students to Success 201 West Burleigh Boulevard Tavares FL 32778-2496 (352) 253-6500 Fax: (352) 253-6503 www.lake.k12.fl.us

January 25, 2016

Dear Chair, Members of the School Board, and Citizens of Lake County:

I am pleased to submit to you Lake County Schools’ Three-Year Strategic Finance Plan.

The School Board’s support continues to give us the necessary guidance and encouragement to assemble this plan. The Three-Year Strategic Finance Plan embraces a bold set of initiatives that hold the promise of meeting the need of redefining how we grow student achievement. It continues to align resources to our instructional priorities and outlines a long-term plan to make these priorities a reality. I wholeheartedly believe that, when enacted, this plan will positively transform teaching and learning in Lake County Schools.

The Three-Year Strategic Finance Plan (SFP) demonstrates an ongoing process of identifying instructional priorities that will support student achievement for all LCS students with the goal of being C2Ready. In order to fund these priorities, we continue the process of identifying realignment opportunities. As was the case in previous years, the SFP will anchor the line-item budget for the 2016-2017 school year and beyond.

Change doesn’t occur overnight, which is why it is significant to note that both our instructional priorities and realignment opportunities take multiple years to unfold. As you examine the SFP, you will notice that most of the categories continue from the first year of the plan and are projected into the future as well.

We recognize that this ongoing process is our “way of work” which encompasses the following practices:

Realign work responsibilities

Focus on efficiencies

Use multiple measures to evaluate instructional priorities

Study what should remain and what should be added to our work over time

The SFP process will continue to include the following instructional priorities that we believe will support long-term success for students. They will be implemented with the following cumulative three-year costs (incremental to our existing investments in these areas):

ELL and Struggling Students and Schools: $ 5.9 million

Investment in People (formerly Talent Development Pipeline): $ 5.6 million

Teacher Induction & Coaching: $ 1.3 million

Program Evaluation & Innovation: $0.5 million

Personalized Learning for Teachers/Leaders: $1.6 million

Personalized Learning for Students: $7.8 million

Leadership Advancement: $0.7 million

Superintendent: School Board Members:

Susan Moxley, Ed.D. District 1 Bill Mathias District 2 Rosanne Brandeburg District 3 Marc Dodd District 4 Debbie Stivender District 5 Stephanie Luke

http://www.lake.k12.fl.us/

We will also continue to support the High School Testing Specialists and Supervision Support at the high schools ($1.6 million) following the change in scheduling implemented in 2014-15. In addition, we have projected adding additional Academic Tutors in 2016-17 ($2.3 million) and implementation of the International Baccalaureate Program ($0.2 million).

These priorities will require the district to continue to reallocate resources from existing activities in the budget along the following timeline: $9.0 million in 2016–2017, $9.8 million in 2017–2018 and $9.8 million in 2018-2019.

We have been fortunate in winning two grants from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that add support to our instructional priority listing. The initiative for “Personalized Learning for Teachers and Leaders” is supported by a three-year Innovative Professional Development grant for $3.9 million. Also, we won support for the Personalized Learning for Students Initiative with Phase I, II and III Next Generation grants totaling $3 million. Additionally, we continue to partner with the National Institute for School Leadership in an i3 grant from the federal government that will support our Leadership Advancement Initiative.

In addition to funding these instructional priorities, the district anticipates a significant budget gap for these three years. Absent new investments or unanticipated expenditures, the district projects a budget shortfall of approximately $1.3 million in 2016–2017, $4.0 million in 2017–2018, and $6.6 million in 2018–2019. Much of this shortfall may be attributed to slow growth in revenues from certain funding sources paired with increased enrollment and a growing staff salary base. To close the shortfall and fund the priorities, the district must realign roughly $9.0 million in 2016–2017, $9.8 million in 2017–2018 and $9.8 million in 2018-2019.

The resource realignment strategies earmarked for 2016–2017 comprise the following activities:

Reassigning some capital-related expenses from the General fund to the Capital fund

Ongoing savings from centralizing and consolidating purchasing practices

Evaluate cost savings from outsourcing lawn service for high-school athletic fields

Ongoing analysis of management discretion

Perform a task analysis to consider realignment of clerical resources at both the central office and schools

Perform a task analysis to review alignment of guidance counselor allocation ratios and responsibilities to state frameworks and best practices

Realign current self-funding professional development to support instructional priorities (General/Title I and II)

Based on our current assumptions, these actions will balance our 2016–17 budget. To achieve a balanced budget in years 2017-18 and 2018-19, in addition to continuing with these initiatives, we intend to explore additional activities:

Continued savings from previous change in high-school schedule that is now established in the baseline

Continued savings from implementing a new administrative salary schedule that is now part of the baseline

Continued savings from efficiencies gained in athletic travel that is now part of the baseline

Consolidated purchasing, specifically targeting maintenance inventory and continued evaluation of overall materials and supplies budgeted in Skyward

Continue to pursue additional operational and central office efficiencies

Increase efficiencies from implementation of routing software

Other opportunities to be identified during the rolling SFP process

Upon approval, the Three-Year SFP will serve to guide our annual budgeting process to ensure our instructional priorities are being funded and budget gaps are closed. We will continue to update the plan each year on a rolling

basis, evaluating activities of the prior year and adding one year to the plan. The plan's extended time horizon and rolling nature increase our ability to spend money smarter - so that every dollar is used to support the community's educational vision and priorities.

LCS has been privileged to be part of the development of this emphasis on spending money smartly - where every dollar is used to support priorities that produce stellar teaching and learning. Along with three other districts, the initial project has become the basis for other school districts in the United States to create their own plans. The project developed the tools, strategies and structures to support this work and is featured on an easily accessible website at smarterschoolspending.org.

This plan was not created in a vacuum and will continue with input from multiple stakeholders. Numerous individuals from schools, the district office, and the community have developed the instructional priorities and resource realignment opportunities. I wish to thank all stakeholders for their time and input. Everyone’s participation is critical to the success of the SFP.

In closing, I think it’s important to note that this is a dynamic, continuous process resulting in a fluid, working document. Together, using this process, we are certainly making the vision of a stronger Lake County School District a reality.

Sincerely,

Susan Moxley

Susan Moxley, Ed.D. Superintendent of Lake County Schools

https://smarterschoolspending.org/

Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Instructional priorities: Incremental investment by year ........................................................................................... 3 Detail on programming for each Instructional Priority ............................................................................................... 4 LCS baseline financial picture .................................................................................................................................... 16 Funding the district's instructional priorities: Budget realignment .......................................................................... 17 Tracking Progress ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................. 21 Appendix A: Resources for ELL and Struggling Students & Schools .......................................................................... 23 Appendix B: Investment in People - formerly Talent Development Pipeline ........................................................... 26 Appendix C: Teacher Induction and Coaching Framework ....................................................................................... 28 Appendix D: Leadership Advancement ..................................................................................................................... 31 Appendix E: Program Evaluation & Innovation Process............................................................................................ 33 Appendix F: Personalized Learning for Teachers and Leaders .................................................................................. 35 Appendix G: Personalized Learning for Students ..................................................................................................... 38 Appendix H: Work Groups......................................................................................................................................... 41

1

Introduction

Purpose of the Strategic Finance Plan

The Lake County School District (LCS) Leadership Team is committed to presenting a budget that aligns to the strategic decisions outlined in the Strategic Finance Plan (SFP), so that the budget supports execution on the district's strategic goals.

This Strategic Finance Plan (SFP) outlines the district's financial strategy over a three-year period. Its objectives are to:

1. Identify the district's strategic priorities 2. Estimate the costs of those priorities 3. Describe the actions to be taken that will save or realign money to fund those priorities

Lake County's Three-Year Strategic Finance Plan was developed by members of the Lake County Schools’ Leadership Team in collaboration with numerous individuals from schools, the district office and the community. A complete listing of current committees and their membership may be found in Appendix H.

The SFP differs from the typical approach

Typically, school districts use a single-year planning horizon and rely heavily on the previous year's expenditures to project the following year's expenses. This approach does not allow for a strong link between spending and district priorities. Additionally, the full, multi-year, detailed cost of initiatives often is not known or considered as part of the budgeting process.

The SFP provides a comprehensive budgeting approach while still holding growth in student achievement as its core objective.

The SFP approach is focused on aligning funding to the strategic priorities that will meaningfully impact student achievement. This process looks across a three-year time horizon. It incorporates informed assumptions about what the district's financial picture will look like in future years instead of relying solely on past expenditures. Furthermore, it integrates a robust picture of the cost of initiatives as part of the decision-making process. Underlying the SFP is a spotlight focus on academic return on investment directed at student achievement.

The SFP is a rolling view of district finances

The SFP is submitted for School Board approval in January. The Leadership Team updates the SFP each fall on a rolling basis prior to the start of the budgeting cycle, evaluating activities of the prior year and adding one year onto the plan. Similar to the district's five-year Capital Plan, a benefit of the SFP is its multi-year span. Painting a long-term view of the district's financial baseline and investment strategy provides visibility far in advance of when action is required. This district shift away from "just-in-time" alignment of the budget supports strategic planning and decision-making.

Lengthening the time span, however, adds uncertainty to the planning process. The projected budget for these

Confirm & update

instructional priorities

Project 3-year revenues and

expenses

Evaluate realignment opportunities

Create 3-year Plan for funding priorities

Align budgetto SFP

Carry out changes to spending

Evaluate opportunities not chosen for current year

Note: Some steps in this process are concurrent

2

years is dependent upon several revenue and enrollment related assumptions that are not accurately known until after each school year begins. In addition, funding levels for school districts are determined annually by the Florida Legislature. The annual Legislative session generally begins in early March and is scheduled to run 60 days, barring the need for extended sessions. Statutorily, the final budget is not approved by the School Board until early September, although the fiscal year begins July 1.

This Legislative timeframe is part of the uncertainty to consider in the presentation of the SFP. This plan lays out 2017-19 actions based on stated assumptions. Unexpected changes in revenue or enrollment projections will require changing the planned execution of the SFP. Specific changes will be addressed as part of the annual district budgeting process. While budgeting is intended to be a fluid and dynamic process, subject to revision and reflection, the commitment to funding the district's instructional priorities stands firm.

Overview of Instructional Priorities

The following seven instructional priorities included in the SFP address the immediate needs of students and support achievement of all students long-term.

3

Instructional priorities: Incremental investment by year

Implementing these instructional priorities will require a significant investment of time and talent. The district will monitor the performance of these instructional priorities throughout the process, maintaining a focus on academic return on investment.

Note: Figures have been rounded; for more precise cost breakdown, see Appendices A-G

4

Detail on programming for each Instructional Priority

English Language Learners (ELL) and Struggling Students Initiative (See Appendix A for additional detail on programming and costs)

What is the need? There is an identified need to support an increase in student achievement for ELL and Level 1 and 2 students. Through the Smarter School Spending process initiated in 2013, it was demonstrated that LCS historically spent less in additional funding for ELL students than the median of comparison districts. Given the overall low-funding level in LCS, resources were also limited for differentiating instruction for under-performing students with less-than-proficient test scores. This instructional priority was established to fill these identified gaps in the 2013-14 school year and began implementation in the 2014-15 school year.

Why this strategy? This initiative will support increased achievement for students within the ELL and Level 1 and 2 student populations.

What will the district do?

Create infrastructure and strengthen systems and processes district-wide, supporting the needs of ELLs

and Struggling Students & Schools

Provide researched-based strategies and professional development aligned to the needs of ELLs and

Struggling Students to build capacity, knowledge, and skills

Work collaboratively with Title I in professional development of Literacy and ELL Teacher Assistants

Provide schools with technical assistance, onsite support, and resources

Identify, maintain, develop, and track district resources

Provide ongoing monitoring and support

Provide additional teachers (ARTS) and Teacher Assistants to support struggling students at designated

schools

Meet bi-monthly with school-based ESOL Contacts and Acceleration Resource Teachers

Conduct on-site technical assistance training at all schools with new ESOL School Contacts to provide

training and support

What will it cost?

5

What gains does the district expect? The state changed from the FCAT to the FSA for state accountability measures in 2014-15. This established a baseline year for testing; our district utilized preliminary data released in January 2016 to determine progress towards these metrics and to determine if goals and outcomes were met from the previous year. Therefore, this instructional priority requests the flexibility to update and possibly reestablish the metrics below once data is available and aligned state-wide.

Return Metrics

Goal: Increase Achievement

District FSA ELA 2014-15

Projected


Actual


Target


Target


Target


Target

English Language Learners

*

14% 24% 34% 44% 54%

Goal: Decrease Amount


Projected

District FSA ELA 2014-15 Preliminary


Target


Target


Target


Target

Level 1 Students * 23% 18% 15% 15% 15%

Level 2 Students * 26% 21% 18% 18% 18%

Goal: Increase Primary Readiness

District ELA 2014-15

Projected


Actual


Target


Target


Target


Target

ON Grade Level **

--- TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD


District FSA Math 2014-15

Projected


Preliminary


Target


Target


Target


Target

Level 1 Students

* 26% 21% 18% 18% 18%

Level 2 Students

* 27% 22% 19% 19% 19%


District Math 2014-15

Projected


Actual


Target


Target


Target


Target

ON Grade Level **


Goal: Increase Growth **


Projected


Actual


Target

District FLA ELA 2016-17

Target


Target


Target

Lowest 25% * TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD


District Grad Rate 2014-15

Projected


Actual


Target


Target


Target


Target

Graduation Rate (All Students)

85% 76% 85% 90% 95% 95%

Graduation Rate (ELL)

70% 57% 70% 80% 90% 95%

* Estimates not set due to transition from FCAT to FSA.

** This metric is added or retitled for the 2015-16 year.

6

Investment In People – formerly Talent Development Pipeline (See Appendix B for additional detail on programming and costs)

Lake County Schools recognizes the need to expand the Talent Development Pipeline to encompass all aspects of developing a high-quality workforce. With this in mind, we are developing an overarching work group with subcommittees that address the recruitment, retention, and talent management of high-quality staff.

A new subcommittee for recruitment and retention of high-quality staff began meeting in January 2016 to formulate goals, objectives and metrics for the committee. The results will be included in the next update of the strategic plan.

Talent Development Pipeline:

What is the need? The district has provided transparent pathways and clear processes for promotion and increased responsibility for teachers through the creation of a talent development pipeline. The pipeline is aligned with the staff compensation system to provide incentives for instructional staff members to improve instruction and gain more responsibility.

Why this strategy? In the past, Lake County School District’s compensation system did not reward teachers in our most challenging schools (Title I) for excellence in the classroom, nor did it recognize that some instructional positions require different skill sets. This talent development pipeline rewards the most effective teachers in Title I schools throughout the district, as well as provides critical shortage bonuses to teachers in our most challenging positions.


Implement Career Pathways for teachers and other instructional staff

Reward teachers teaching in Title I schools based on performance as indicated through summative

evaluations

Provide bonuses to teachers in critical shortage areas

Provide leadership opportunities to teachers and other instructional staff based on performance as

indicated through summative evaluations

What will it cost?

7

What gains does the district expect?

Performance Return Metrics 2014-15 Projected

2014-15 Actual

2015-16 Target

2016-17 Target

2017-18 Target

2018-19 Target

Goal: Increase Retention Rate in Title I Schools

81% 84% 85% 86% 86% 88%

Goal: Increased Retention Rate of Effective teachers in Tit le I schools (Percent Retained Annually)

70% 84% 87% 89% 91% 93%

Goal: Increased Retention Rate of Highly Effective Teachers in Title I schools (Percent Retained Annually)

80% 87% 89% 91% 93% 95%

Goal: Increase Retention Rate in Critical Shortage Areas

80% 84% 85% 86% 87% 88%

Goal: Percent of Administrators Reporting that Pipeline Helps Retain Effective Teachers

65% 67% 75% 90% 95% 96%

Goal: Percent of teachers reporting that pipeline contributes positively to motivation to improve instructional practices

65% TBD 75% 90% 95% 96%

8

Teacher Induction and Coaching Framework (See Appendix C for additional detail on programming and costs)

What is the need? This priority provides a district framework for instructional coaching and high-quality teacher induction support for all new teachers. Research is clear that the most important factor in improving student achievement is the quality of the classroom teacher. Through this priority, Lake County Schools will be able to increase teacher effectiveness and new teacher retention. Why this strategy? This priority is based on the work of the New Teacher Center and Marzano/Learning Sciences International. Through these nationally recognized, research-based organizations our instructional coaches will develop a deep repertoire of coaching skills that impact teacher practice to improve student learning outcomes. What will the district do?

Site-based support for all first-year teachers

Collaborative support with school leadership teams for teachers in their second and third year of teaching

Training for all district instructional coaches and school-based content coaches

District framework for training instructional coaches

What will it cost?


Performance Return Metrics 2014-15

Projected 2014-15 Actual

2015-16 Target

2016-17 Target

2017-18 Target

2018-19 Target

Goal: Percent of first-year teachers retained 75% 73% 75% 77% 79% 81%

Goal: Percent of first-year teachers with student performance measures rated Highly Effective/Effective

93% 93% 95% 97% 99% 99%

Goal: First-year teacher instructional practice scores (2.5 to 3.49 is Effective)

3.01 3.03 3.1 3.15 3.2 3.25

Goal: Percent of first-year teachers rated Effective or Highly Effective (Summative)

98% 97% 98% 98% 98% 98%

Goal: Percent of first-year teachers who reported coach influenced their teacher practice

87% 88% 89% 91% 93% 95%

Goal: Percent of first-year teachers who reported coach impacted their students’ learning

86% 87% 88% 90% 92% 94%

Goal: Percent of administrators who reported LCS Teacher Induction Program influenced school’s growth in advancing teacher practice

73% 86% 88% 90% 92% 94%

9

Leadership Advancement (See Appendix D for additional detail on programming and costs)

What is the need? LCS principals as the instructional leaders of schools are central to student achievement. Lake County Schools has a significant need for the development of assistant principals and new principals. Additionally, ongoing professional learning opportunities are needed for established principals and district leaders.

Why this strategy? This strategy will increase teacher effectiveness and ultimately support growth in student achievement through the focused development of strong instructional leaders.

What will the district do? • Improve the level of support given to early career principals through professional development, one-on-

one mentoring, and professional learning communities • Has created the role of Director of Leadership, tasked with program oversight and implementation,

organizing professional development for aspiring principals, assistant principals, principals, and district leaders; and meeting with early career principals regularly to provide feedback

• Provide tailored, targeted support based on four groupings of staff: targeted assistant principals, first-year principals, second-year principals, and 3+-year principals

What will it cost?




2015-16 Target

2016-17 Target

2017-18 Target

2018-19 Target

Goal: Percent of Principals rated Highly Effective on the LEADS evaluation *

41% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68%

Goal: Percent of Principals rated Effective on the LEADS evaluation *

59% 40% 38% 36% 34% 32%

Goal: Percent of Assistant Principals rated Highly Effecve on the LEADS evaluation *

18% 37% 42% 47% 52% 57%

Goal: Percent of Assistant Principals rated Effective on the LEADS evaluation *

82% 63% 58% 53% 48% 43%

Goal: Percent of Principals whose FLDOE school grade is a “C” or higher

84% 89% 91% 92% 93% 94%

* Scoring system under review and revision for 2016 -17

10

Program Evaluation & Innovation Process (See Appendix E for additional detail on programming and costs)

What is the need? The program evaluation and innovation process provides a framework for rigorously evaluating existing and proposed programs to ensure the best return on investment to facilitate student achievement. The district focuses on implementing the program evaluation process with fidelity and culturally embedding a standardized method of work that includes clearly assigned ownership of actions and clear timelines for high-impact decision-making.

Why this strategy? To ensure the best return on investment for district funds to maximize student achievement and district operations.


Evaluate targeted innovations to determine best investments for intended outcomes

Evaluate all instructional priorities included in the District Finance Plan to report return on investment

Evaluate current programs to determine return on investment to inform decisions on continuing, modifying or discontinuing programs (Achieve 3000, AVID, PreK–2 Reading Programs, Renaissance Learning, Safari Montage, i-Ready, Istation)

Evaluate proposed programs to determine return on investment to inform decisions on implementation. Beginning with:

o International Baccalaureate

Preliminary cost estimates were developed

Committee forming in early 2016 to establish action plan

What will it cost?




2015-16 Target

2016-17 Target

2017-18 Target

2018-19 Target

Goal: Number of Program Evaluations of Instructional Priorities

7 7 7 7 7 7

Goal: Program Evaluations on additional high profile/high investment programs

4 5 5 6 7 8

Goal: Percentage of ROI calculations determined to be positive returns

60% TBD 75% 90% 90% 90%

Goal: Percentage of identified performance metrics for monitored programs showing improvement

50% TBD 65% 75% 80% 85%

11

Goal: Stakeholder satisfaction regarding integrity of evaluation process

100% TBD 100% 100% 100% 100%

Goal: Stakeholder satisfaction related to effectiveness of program monitoring

100% TBD 100% 100% 100% 100%

12

Personalized Learning for Teachers and Leaders (See Appendix F for additional detail on programming and costs)

What is the need? Lake County Schools must support teachers and leaders in meeting the demands of the new Florida Standards. The new Florida Standards are rigorous and require a significant shift in curriculum, instruction and assessment. At the outset, the district lacked an integrated, aligned system for personalizing professional learning to support teacher and leader effectiveness. As the standards are implemented in schools, the capacity to address the individual needs of our teachers and leaders is severely being tested. Hence the need to assist teachers and leaders in the district by creating structured systems that drive personalized professional learning for teachers and leaders. The foundational goals for personalized learning for teachers and leaders are the following:

Use data to determine professional learning needs for teachers and leaders

Develop learning pathways to empower teachers and leaders to meet their individual goals for growth and development

Ensure flexible learning offering

Link evidence of leader growth to data as it relates to teacher professional learning needs and wants These foundational goals personalize professional learning for teachers and leaders in ways that are innovative, empowering, and driven by the individual. Because both teachers and leaders will come into this work at different entry points, the need for an aligned, integrated personalized professional learning system is evident in order to increase teacher and leader effectiveness that will translate to prepared College and Career Ready Students. Why this strategy? Effective, empowered and passionate teachers and leaders are the key to preparing students to be College and Career Ready. Without a personalized professional learning system that meets the needs of all teachers and leaders, systems are disconnected resulting in declining state assessment scores for the district, a large turnover in staff, and a strain on existing systems resulting in a lack of sustainability. With an aligned, integrated personalized professional learning system, teachers and leaders are able to meet the challenges of the Florida Standards, become empowered and passionate about their own learning and professionalize the practice providing a foundation for teacher retention.


Ensure all teachers have ample time within the school day for collaboration (without sacrificing quality student learning) focused on core instructional work

Provide multi-modal access to high-quality PD content based on teachers’ needs and student results

Provide all teachers with frequent opportunities and multiple sources of feedback on their instructional practice

Assess the impact of professional development content and experiences

Established an ad hoc committee to examine bell schedules to maximize student instructional and teacher planning time

13

What will it cost?


*Based on MDRC survey data that targeted middle and high schools during the 2014-15 ** FSTs are intended to support teachers and school redesign therefore an adjustment to the metrics to reflect their prescribed duties was warranted.



2015-16 Target

2016-17 Target

2017-18 Target

2018-19 Target

Goal: Percent of School Master Schedules Reflect Structured Collaborative Professional Development Time for Teachers

25% 28% 35% 50% 75% 75%

Goal: Percent of Schools Implementing the Lesson Study Cycle through Professional Learning Communities

15% 30% 40% 50% 75% 75%

Goal: Percent of Teachers That Report Professional Development Needs Are Met *

30% 45% 50% 60% 70% 70%

Goal: Percent of Teachers Report Using At Least three (3) Different Modalities That Match Their Professional Development Needs *

40% 73% 75% 77% 79% 81%

Goal: Percent of Florida Standards Teachers Report Support Provided to Students, Teachers and Leadership **

Students 25% 26% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Teachers 60% 54% 65% 70% 70% 70%

Leadership 15% 20% 15% 10% 10% 10%

14

Personalized Learning for Students (See Appendix G for additional detail on programming and costs)

What is the need? This instructional priority helps fulfill the district need of teaching all of our Lake County students in a way that will prepare them for success in college and/or career. Why this strategy? By providing a learning environment that is personalized based on the individual student’s likes, interests, and needs, we can move into a system in which all students find success.


Develop a thorough implementation plan that includes district scale-up, sustainability, and expectations

according to cohort group

Develop documentation that guides each cohort to the highest levels of successful implementation

Develop the PL Website to offer exemplars and resources for schools

Support the five launch schools (Lost Lake Elementary, Sawgrass Bay Elementary, South Lake High,

Umatilla High, and Windy Hill Middle) and nine pilot/plan schools (Carver Middle, East Ridge Middle,

Eustis High, Eustis Middle, Gray Middle, Lake Minneola High, Pine Ridge Elementary, and Tavares Middle)

Select and support the school moving forward into Cohort II

Begin the application process for Cohort III

Develop the district framework for competency-based progression

Coordinate the work of the NextGen technical assistance partners

Implement communications plan

Complete grant compliance documentation

Explore and identify an option for the learner profile and path

What will it cost?

15

Proactive Planning: Milestones for Instructional Priority for February 1 – June 30, 2016

Milestone Due Date Support the launch and plan schools in continuing to develop the work and to communicate the work to all stakeholders

Ongoing

Meet with communications team members for training and implementation planning

Jan 2016 – March 2016

Continue work with Great Schools Partnership on the competency-based progression framework

Jan 2016 - ongoing

Organize meetings for learner profile and competency-based progression Tiger Teams

Jan 2016 – June 2016

Develop a PL implementation plan Jan 2016 – March 2016

Write up and turn in to BMGF grant compliance reporting documents Jan 30, 2016

Finalize Tiger Team resources for student-directed learning and flexible learning environments

Feb 2016

School presentations by plan schools for moving into Cohort II Feb 2016 Develop guidance documents for schools to guide them to the highest levels of implementation

Feb 2016 – May 2016

Announce Cohort III schools March 2016

Pull inter-departmental team to develop task-neutral scoring criteria March – April 2016

Begin the applications for Cohort III April 2016

Return Metrics:



2015-16 Target

2016-17 Target

2017-18 Target

2018-19 Target

Student Feedback on Survey * --- --- TBD Feb.

2016 --- --- ---

NWEA Student Formative Assessment Scores ** --- --- Baseline

TBD --- --- ---

Goal: Launch Schools – Planned & Consistent Scale-up ***

--- --- 5 6 6 23

Goal: Planning Schools – Planning & Consistent Scale-up

8 8 9 7 6 18

* Researching appropriate survey tool, timeliness of distribution and potential alignment with Personalized Learning for Teachers and Leaders. ** Awaiting contract approval to begin baseline testing. *** Planning year, no schools ready for launch until 2015-16

16

LCS baseline financial picture

Creating the Strategic Finance Plan embeds this process in the district’s regular “way of doing work.”

Our goal is a continuing effort to improve efficiencies and move funding to target key instructional priorities.

LCS has an exceptionally lean budget and has historically done a good job of identifying, prioritizing, and protecting mandatory costs so that requirements have been met. School allocation formulas and systems largely distribute resources evenly across the district. Expenditures on direct instruction as a percent of the total budget were lower than anticipated as a result of both the substantial amount of fixed costs required to run a school district and strategic decisions in previous years.

These key learnings point to a number of ways to improve and grow as a district. LCS needs to continue to increase its focus on instructional priorities rather than simply thinking of a budget in terms of bottom-line financials. The academic return-on-investment must be the central focus of the budget process. Though equity between school allocations is not a fault, it is imperative that the district creates more room to offer tailored, differentiated resources to schools and students based on their individual needs when possible. In order to support these paradigm shifts, LCS is aligning the myriad of budgeting processes for various revenue sources, including the General fund, Federal Title funds, Federal Exceptional Student Education funds, and the Capital fund. This will support the district in creating a complete picture of realignment opportunities and their strategic alignment to the instructional priorities.

Through realignments we made last year, we changed our budget baseline and narrowed these gaps

This gap is based on a number of assumptions. Overall, projections are based on historical year-to-year changes in revenues and expenses.

Specific additional revenue assumptions include the following:

Entitlement (e.g., Title) funding is flat due to reauthorization

17

2.5% increase in per-FTE state funding

Annual increase of 550 students

Key expense assumptions include the following

Available pool of funds for staff compensation increase by 3.0% annually

Maintenance of reserves calculated at required 4% of total revenue

Funding the district's instructional priorities: Budget realignment

Though the listed realignment figures are estimates, LCS is committed to funding the instructional priorities

The estimated dollar savings amounts that follow are approximations based on the work of interdisciplinary district teams. These teams considered the qualitative impacts (impact on the student experience, feasibility, degree of strategic alignment with the district's instructional priorities), as well as the quantitative figures. LCS is committing to funding these priorities over the next three years, though specific actions or figures may change over time. LCS will determine the specific actions needed to achieve these realignments over the coming months, as the district enters the 2016-2017 budget cycle.

The following areas will continue to drive the budget over the plan’s three year cycle:

18

In order to balance the 2016-2017 budget and fund the instructional priorities, the district will take action to realign approximately $7. 6 million

Realignment Opportunities Investment Opportunities

2016–17 Area 2016-17

Shift of expenses out of general fund ($M) Baseline ($M)

Capital expenditures 2.5

Surplus (gap) (1.3)

Realignments within general fund ($M) IP Costs ($M)

High school schedule 4.7 Roll forward from previous year 2.5

Consolidated purchasing 0.6 ELL and Struggling Students & Schools (1.9)

IDEA funding (non-recurring) 0 Investment in People (1.8)

Maintenance: lawn care 0 Teacher Induction & Coaching (0.4)

Management discretion 0.5 Leadership Advancement (0.2)

Transportation 0.3 Program Evaluation & Innovation (0.2)

Administrative salaries 0.4 Pers. Learning (Teachers/Leaders) (1.0)

Athletics transportation 0.1 Pers. Learning (Students) (1.8)

Clerical TBD

Guidance Counselors TBD Total: Priorities only (7.3)

Additional Savings Addition: HS Testing/Super (0.5)

Self-funding Prof. Development 1.3 Addition: Academic Tutors (0.8)

Addition: IB Planning (0.2)

Total Savings 10.4 Total including baseline gap (7.6)

With the 2016-17 balanced budget as described, $4.0 M in 2017-2018 and $6.6M in 2018-19 remain as budget gaps to be filled

Options currently being evaluated to fill the future budget deficits:

School models: Examine magnet school models, Collegiate H.S., School Choice, CTE Academies, etc.

IDEA efficiencies: Pursue additional reimbursements and evaluate efficiencies of staffing placement; ongoing study needed for any changes, data available supports current status

District staffing: Examine roles and responsibilities of district-level positions

Central Office for district staff: Explore costs and efficiencies gained from a centralized location for district departments

19

Tracking Progress

Each year, the SFP is organized to include evaluation of the district's resource allocation processes and outcomes against chosen metrics:

The current status of each Realignment opportunity and Instructional Priority is detailed below:

Realignment Opportunity Current Status

Capital Expenditure Realignment

Reassign some capital-related expenses from general fund to capital fund

High School Schedule

Implemented 7-period day at high schools

Testing Facilitators hired

Provided before and after-school supervision

Virtual lab facilitators hired at 8 high schools

Established – now included in base line

Consolidated Purchasing

Purchasing Card Program – Approved banking agreement. Initial projections for additional revenue from the purchasing card rebate program have not materialized. The program is continuing and expanding but at a lower level than originally anticipated

Janitorial supplies – Consolidated purchasing of janitorial supplies through central warehouse was implemented for the 2014-2015 budget process

Maintenance inventories – Procedures being modified to reduce inventory balances as recommended by maintenance staff

IDEA Funding (non-recurring)

12% IDEA fund support for multiple Instructional Priority positions implemented through the staffing plan for 2014-2015

Reduction in funding for 2015-2016 required restructuring to remove federal funding

Effectiveness of

resource use: How

effectively are we

allocating resources to

support our

instructional priorities?

Resource

allocation

process: Do we

have structures in

place to support

effective resource

allocation?

Resource allocation

culture: Does our

culture prioritize

strategic decision

making based on

academic return on

investment?

20

Maintenance: lawn care

Evaluate cost savings from outsourcing lawn service for high-school athletic fields

Management discretion Continue to pursue additional operational and central office

efficiencies

Transportation: bell schedule & software

Increase efficiencies from implementation of routing software

Bell schedules will remain unchanged and students will not share routes as projected earlier

Administrative salary

New administrative salary schedule providing incremental savings was implemented

Developing performance measures for district-level administrators


Athletics transportation Reduce funding for athletics transportation


Clerical Perform a task analysis to consider realignment of clerical resources

at both the central office and schools

Guidance counselors Perform a task analysis to review alignment of counselor

responsibilities to the state frameworks and best practices

Self-Funding PD (General/Title I and II)

Realign current professional development funding to support instructional priorities

Instructional Priority Current Status

ELL and Struggling Students

Provided 63 days of onsite support to targeted schools and 62 days of onsite support for ELL to all schools

Offered 960 hours of professional learning to 1,111 teachers & teacher assistants aligned to ELLs and underperforming students

Provided onsite monitoring/support to targeted schools showing an increase in 2014-15 simulated school grades in 7 of the 9 schools by 1-3 letter grades

Supported targeted schools with using Early Warning Signs reducing the percentage of students absent 10 or more days from 41% in 2013-14 to 29% in 2014-15

Investment in People

Formerly known as Talent Development Pipeline which will be a subcommittee to Investment in People beginning in January 2016. Current Status of Talent Development Pipeline is as follows:

Talent Development Pipeline negotiated and ratified the contract with LCEA

Communication, in the forms of a newsletters, Moodle, and overviews provided to schools

Supplements will be distributed in January 2016

Once supplements and critical shortage bonuses have been distributed to teachers, Leadership Opportunities funding will be distributed to schools and district departments

Teacher Induction and coaching Framework

Providing direct individualized support for 192 first year teachers

Increased certification support with General Knowledge Test Review courses for ELA and Math

Increased support for Classroom Management by adding additional courses and TeachLive

Program Evaluation and Innovation

Provided update to Board, June 2015

Presented AVID and PD360 program review to School Board

Program reviews underway for ELL and Struggling Students, Achieve 3000 and Rosetta Stone

21

Personalized Learning for Teachers and Leaders

Prepared Progress Report for the Gates Foundation on the iPD Grant

Created teams specific to district needs to build capacity and sustainability

Addressed professional learning needs focused on standards-based instruction for teachers, coaches, and school-based leadership teams

Continued support, training and facilitation of foundational frameworks of the priority

Reorganized focus of Florida Standards Teachers and job embedded criteria

Personalized Learning for Students

LCS’s work is being highlighted and recognized across the state and the country: o We hosted a PL Summit with attendees from across the

country; o Two of our students – from WHMS – presented at the national

iNacol conference o Our launch school staff were interviewed by an international

Website on competency-based progression (CompetencyWorks.org)

Schools have “on-boarded” at a faster rate than anticipated: (14/40 vs. 11/40 = 35%)

The budgeting/planning with the SFP funds has been working extremely well to support and scale up beyond the reach of grant funds

Leadership Advancement

Initial Design of the Mentoring Process

Team identified to participate in the NISL training certification was modified (Pearson & Cockcroft)

Two (2) principals identified for the research project and school data submitted (CLMS and MDMS)

The district’s “Pathways to Leadership Program” is being coordinated and in the process of final update

Conclusion

LCS believes that this is an ambitious, courageous plan that will increase student achievement as its implementation continues. The district welcomes continued community engagement to make radical change and progress on behalf of the students.

22

APPENDICES

23

Appendix A: Resources for ELL and Struggling Students & Schools

Need for this Program As part of the EngageLCS process in 2013-14, LCS conducted an assessment of current resource use within the district thereby identifying a need to provide additional funding for initiatives aimed at two subsets of the student population: English Language Learners (ELL) and Level 1 and Level 2 students. (Level 1 and Level 2 students are those who perform below grade level in reading and/or math as indicated by their Florida Standards Assessments.) Resource levels and student achievement data made a compelling case for additional support over an extended 3-5 year period. As a result, the Strategic Finance Plan recommended additional funding directed at these students in order to close the achievement gap between these students and their peers. Most recent data still identifies a need for continued funding to support this program through 2020. ELL students:

15% of ELL students scored satisfactory or above in ELA on the 2015 FSA, compared to 49% of all LCS students

22% of ELL students scored satisfactory or above in Math on 2014-15 FSA, compared to 51% of all LCS students

57% of ELL students graduated in 2014-15, compared to 76% of all LCS students Level 1 and Level 2 students:

23% of Lake County schools’ students scored a Level 1 in ELA on the 2015 FSA.

26% of Lake County Schools’ students scored a Level 2 in ELA on the 2015 FSA.

26% of Lake County schools’ students scored a Level 1 in Math on the 2015 FSA.

27% of Lake County Schools’ students scored a Level 2 in Math on the 2015 FSA.

Resources are limited for differentiating instruction for Level 1 and 2 students.

Despite ESE and Title I funding, administrators report that many schools still lack adequate resources to effectively support Level 1 and 2 students.

Objectives

Increase student achievement for ELL students and Level 1 and Level 2 students.

English Language Learners: Fund programs aimed at closing the achievement gap of English Language

Learner students.

Struggling Students & Schools: Inject additional resources to support struggling students and schools in

order to help increase student achievement

Components / Activities LCS utilizes the Program Evaluation and Innovation ROI Process to determine which uses of these funds have brought the highest return on investment in terms of student achievement for these targeted groups. Evaluation of the ELL and SSS Instructional Priority took place during the 2014-15 school year and extended into the 2015-16 school year.

Rationale for Components / Activities Through the Year 1 implementation of the SFP in 2013-14, an ESOL Program Specialist and four ELL School Specialists were added to strengthen the district-wide infrastructure and systems. Twenty-two Acceleration

24

Resource Teachers were provided to schools with 48 percent or more Level 1 and 2 students to work directly with students, teachers, and the school-based leadership team. Fifteen additional Literacy Teacher Assistants were also provided to support the needs of Level 1 and 2 students. The Program Evaluation and Innovation ROI Process began on the ELL and SSS Instructional Priority in the 2014-15 school year and a report was generated in 2015. A board audit was also conducted of the Teaching and Learning Department in 2015 which included this instructional priority within the department leading the initiative. All findings demonstrated adherence to the goals, objectives and outcomes by establishing, supporting, and monitoring newly implemented systems, processes, and structures district-wide. Recommendations were also provided to improve the effectiveness and efficiency for the upcoming year.

Timeline Selected programs initiated for the 2018–20 school years include the following:

Maintaining the existing district staff, Acceleration Resource Teachers, and Literacy Teacher Assistants to provide targeted support to ELLs and Struggling Students & Schools

Continuing ongoing onsite-support and professional development to build the capacity of administrators, teachers, and paraprofessionals district-wide

Costs The district allocated approximately $1 million to each of these two sets of programs in each of the three coming school years, for a total of $6 million by 2018-20. The district determined precisely how to direct these funds through the program evaluation and innovation process.

Item 2015-2016 Budgeted

2016-2017 Estimated Cost



1 ESOL Program Specialist @ $68,435 for 216 days Salary & Benefits

$68,435 $70,488 $72,603 $74,781

1 Secretary II @ $40,042 for 247 days Salary & Benefits

$40,043 $41,244 $42,482 $43,756

4 Regional ELL School Specialists @ $55,763 for 196 days Salary & Benefits

$223,052 $229,744 $236,636 $243,735

21 School-Based Academic Tutors for Kindergarten

Funded through general budget

--- --- ---

42 School-Based Academic Tutors for Kindergarten-1st Grade

---- Shown as addition on SFP Summary

19 School-Based Acceleration Resource Teachers @ $55,763 for 196 days Salary & Benefits

$1,059,497 $1,091,282 $1,124,021 $1,157,741

15 Title I Paraprofessionals to support literacy for 30 hours a week @ $23,210 + Benefits

$348,150 $358,595 $369,352 $380,433

Substitutes for professional development

$71,098 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000

Supplies/materials for professional development

$50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000

Program Cost and Consultants $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000

In and Out-of-County Travel $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000

Total Cost $1,915,275 $1,936,352 $1,960,093 $1,985,446

* Two ART positions were removed because of a reduction in IDEA funding

25

Return Metrics

The state switched from the FCAT to the FSA for state accountability measures in 2014-15. This established a baseline year for testing. Our district utilized preliminary data released in January 2016 to determine progress towards these metrics and to determine if goals and outcomes were met from the previous year. Therefore, this instructional priority requests the flexibility to update and possibly reestablish the metrics below once data are available and aligned state-wide.



Projected


Actual


Target


Target


Target


Target

English Language Learners

*

14% 24% 34% 44% 54%



Projected

District FSA ELA 2014-15 Preliminary


Target


Target


Target


Target

Level 1 Students * 23% 18% 15% 15% 15%

Level 2 Students * 26% 21% 18% 18% 18%



Projected


Actual


Target


Target


Target


Target

ON Grade Level **




Projected


Preliminary


Target


Target


Target


Target

Level 1 Students

* 26% 21% 18% 18% 18%

Level 2 Students

* 27% 22% 19% 19% 19%



Projected


Actual


Target


Target


Target


Target

ON Grade Level **


Goal: Increase Growth **


Projected


Actual


Target

District FLA ELA 2016-17

Target


Target


Target

Lowest 25% * TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD



Projected


Actual


Target


Target


Target


Target

Graduation Rate (All Students)

85% 76% 85% 90% 95% 95%

Graduation Rate (ELL)

70% 57% 70% 80% 90% 95%

* Estimates not set due to transition from FCAT to FSA.

** This metric is added or retitled for the 2015-16 year.

26

Appendix B: Investment in People - formerly Talent Development Pipeline

Lake County Schools recognizes the need to expand the Talent Development Pipeline to encompass all aspects of developing a high-quality workforce. With this in mind, we are developing an overarching work group with subcommittees that address the recruitment, retention, and talent management of high-quality staff.

A new subcommittee for recruitment and retention of high-quality staff began meeting in January 2016 to formulate goals, objectives and metrics for the committee. The results will be included in the next update of the strategic plan.

Talent Development Pipeline:

Need

In the past, Lake County School’s compensation system did not reward teachers for excellence in the classroom, nor did it recognize that some instructional positions require different skill sets. This approach did not optimally support increased student achievement, nor did it fully recognize teacher quality. This program will reward the most effective teachers in the district, aiding retention and recruiting efforts with the goal of increasing student achievement.

Objectives

1. Provide transparent pathways and clear processes for promotion and increased responsibility through the creation of a talent development pipeline for teachers, administrators and district leadership

2. Align the pipeline with the staff compensation system to provide incentives for staff members to improve and gain more responsibility

Components / Activities

A committee involving representation from a variety of stakeholders was formed to collaborate and collectively develop the framework for this initiative. The Leadership Initiatives for Teachers (LIFT) committee began by meeting regularly from late August through early October 2013. The committee started by reviewing sample career ladder plans used in other Districts and/or States.

Plans were discussed and highlights from each listed in a compare/contrast chart. The LIFT for LCS Career Ladder was constructed using sound research (the best from each plan). The bulk of LIFT for LCS is based on the philosophy and structure of the District of Columbia Public School Plan. From here, the framework was taken to the LCS School Board and the LCEA Negotiations Committee for approval. LIFT for LCS is in its second year of implementation. With input from the LIFT committee, the second phase of this plan was developed, which includes implementing 5 leadership opportunities for effective and highly effective teachers. These include Curriculum Writer, PD Facilitator, PLC Facilitator, TEAM Expert and Teacher Mentor, each providing additional compensation for instructional staff. LIFT for LCS was negotiated and approved in August, 2015. Once approved, a variety of communication modes were developed to inform staff about the initiative. These include:

A LIFT for LCS Newsletter that will be sent to all staff

A voice-over PowerPoint explaining the LIFT for LCS framework and how it will be implemented available

for all staff

27

Numerous presentations at Principal’s and Assistant Principal’s meetings

A LIFT for LCS section on the TEAM Moodle Site

Rationale for Components / Activities Traditionally, many teachers have found that the only way to advance in their careers is to leave the classroom. The LIFT for LCS changes that. LIFT is a five-stage career ladder that provides high-performing teachers with opportunities for advancement inside the classroom, as well as additional responsibility and increased recognition and compensation. At its core, LIFT is about honoring teachers as professionals, and making LCS a place where teachers at any point in their career can continue to learn and grow in an environment where they are respected and appreciated.

Timeline LIFT for LCS was implemented during the 2014-2015 school year. Currently, it is in its second year of implementation.

Costs


2016-17 Estimate

2017-18 Estimate

2018-19 Estimate

Manager of Employee Compensation and Evaluation: Salary and benefits

$104,000 $107,120 110,334 $113,644

Compensation and Evaluation Analyst: Salary and benefits

$95,000 $97,850 $100,786 $103,809

Bonus/Supplements for HE and E teachers *

$1,445,000

$1,550,000

$1,650,000

$1,750,000 Recruitment Bonuses *

Critical Shortage Bonuses *

Leadership Opportunities *

Total Cost $1,644,000 $1,754,970 $1,861,120 $1,967,453

Return Metrics

These metrics focus on retaining highly effective teachers, and incentivizing teachers and administrators to work in low-performing schools, and on positive responses to a teacher survey.

Performance Return Metrics 2014-15 Projected

2014-15 Actual

2015-16 Target

2016-17 Target

2017-18 Target

2018-19 Target

Goal: Increase Retention Rate in Title I Schools

81% 84% 85% 86% 86% 88%

Goal: Increased Retention Rate of Effective teachers in Tit le I schools (Percent Retained Annually)

70% 84% 87% 89% 91% 93%

Goal: Increased Retention Rate Of Highly Effective Teachers in Title I schools (Percent Retained Annually)

80% 87% 89% 91% 93% 95%

Goal: Increase Retention Rate in Critical Shortage Areas

80% 84% 85% 86% 87% 88%

Goal: Percent of Administrators Reporting That Pipeline Helps Retain Effective Teachers

65% 67% 75% 90% 95% 96%

Goal: Percent of teachers reporting that pipeline contributes positively to motivation to improve instructional practices

65% TBD 75% 90% 95% 96%

28

Appendix C: Teacher Induction and Coaching Framework

Need for this Program Each year, more than 10 percent of the district's teaching staff is new to the profession. In 2012–2013, new teachers were supported on a 1:73 coach-to-teacher ratio. Due to the high ratio, new teachers had only brief contact with their district instructional coaches, and intensive support was provided only in critical situations. Through this priority, coach-to-teacher ratios are now 1:30. The district has also lacked a consistent protocol for training district and school-based coaches across departments. Teachers do not always receive the support and feedback needed for the growth and development of effective instructional practices. In addition, the district has not implemented a consistent process for new teacher mentorship at schools. Through this instructional priority, the district will be able to provide focused support for new teachers, allowing them to grow in the profession and support them in helping their students gain higher achievement. A strong district-wide framework for training all coaches is needed.

Objectives

Improve the quality of coaching in the district through establishing a district-wide framework for training

coaches

Provide new teachers with robust mentoring from instructional coaches, which will increase student

achievement and teacher retention

Components / Activities The instructional priority is providing focused professional development for district and school based coaches supporting new teachers, maintaining effective teacher-to-coach ratios, and building capacity and sustainability for effective instructional practices of new teachers that impact student learning outcomes. Professional development will focus on research-based practices for effective mentoring and coaching practices. Collaborative partners for the professional learning include the New Teacher Center and Marzano/Learning Sciences International. During the 2015-2016 school year, we will provide professional development to deepen the coaching support for district instructional coaches and school based coaches. In order to build training capacity, two district coaches and two school based coaches will be trained as facilitators, building a system of sustainability for the ability to train all new coaches in utilizing effective coaching practices in the future. New teachers receive an average of 30-45 minutes of coaching support each week, based on their individual needs. The district coaches are working collaboratively with school leadership teams to build a culture of coaching at all schools. A guide is being developed to establish the district protocols for both district instructional coaches and school based coaches to increase the new teacher support and outline the best practices for successful coaching and mentoring. The focus for coaching and mentoring support is based on the Marzano Instructional Framework as it is our language of instruction. Coaches work with new teachers to learn the framework through the implementation of the Florida Standards utilizing the tools and resources developed by Lake County Schools. The coaches also monitor new teacher participation at required and recommended training events, as well as guide them through the certification process. The desired result of this instructional priority is to improve teacher effectiveness that impacts student learning outcomes and results in higher teacher retention rates and over-all more effective instruction. Additionally, a strong district-wide framework for training all coaches and developing a common language will be a priority.

29

Rationale for Components / Activities Research is clear that the most important factor in improving student achievement is the quality of the teacher in the classroom. Having 350-400 new teachers each year is counterproductive to building capacity for a highly effective instructional staff. Implementing a teacher induction and coaching framework that is grounded in research-based practices will help Lake County Schools develop the capacity for sustainable change for effective instructional practices that impact student learning. Effective teachers need effective coaches. Through focused and ongoing professional development, instructional coaches and school-based content coaches will develop the common language and skilled practices that guide effective teacher induction and coaching. According to the New Teacher Center, effective teacher induction programs provide coaching and support to new teachers during their first three years in the classroom. Expanding the district instructional coach team allows for this intensive level of induction support that focuses on developing coaching practices around common protocol for all district coaches and supports over-all teacher effectiveness.

Timeline The Teacher Induction and Instructional Coaching initiative launched in the fall of 2013 as a pilot project supporting teacher induction for 75 first-year teachers. In the fall of 2014, additional district instructional coaches were added to provide teacher induction support for all first and second year teachers. Through ongoing training and school-based collaborative efforts, coaching support of standards-based instruction will increase for new teachers and teachers in need of additional coaching in 2015. District capacity for leading professional development for effective coaching will be finalized with the New Teacher Center during 2016-2017.

Costs





Program Specialist for 216 days. (Salary and benefits)

$68,435 $70,488 $72,603 $74,781

3 District Instructional Coaches for 196 days @ $55,763. (Salary and benefits)

$167,289 $172,308 $177,477 $182,801

Consultant Fees 0 0 0 0

Prof. Dev. Costs 0 $22,000 $22,000 $22,000

Year 2 PL Cohort A $68,300 $68,300 $68,300 $68,300

Year 1 PL Cohort B $64,500 64,500 $64,500 $64,500

Train-the-Trainer Academy $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000

Prof. Dev. Materials 0 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000

Online Coaching Tools 0 0 0 0

In-County Travel for Coaches 0 $5,500 $5,500 $6,000

Computer Set-up 0 $5,000 0 $5,000

Supplies for Coaches 0 $500 $500 $500

Total Cost $371,524 $414,596 $416,880 $429,882

30

Return Metrics



2015-16 Target

2016-17 Target

2017-18 Target

2018-19 Target

Goal: Percent of first-year teachers retained 75% 73% 75% 77% 79% 81%

Goal: Percent of first-year teachers with student performance measures rated Highly Effective/Effective

93% 93% 95% 97% 99% 99%

Goal: First-year teacher instructional practice scores (2.5 to 3.49 is Effective)

3.01 3.03 3.1 3.15 3.2 3.25

Goal: Percent of first-year teachers rated Effective or Highly Effective (Summative)

98% 97% 98% 98% 98% 98%

Goal: Percent of first-year teachers who reported coach influenced their teacher practice

87% 88% 89% 91% 93% 95%

Goal: Percent of first-year teachers who reported coach impacted their students’ learning

86% 87% 88% 90% 92% 94%

Goal: Percent of administrators who reported LCS Teacher Induction Program influenced school’s growth in advancing teacher practice

73% 86% 88% 90% 92% 94%

31

Appendix D: Leadership Advancement

Need for this Program The Leadership Advancement Program is a structured approach to increase support, build capacity and retain high quality principals. This collaborative process will engage new principals in a one-on-one relationship with the Director of Leadership as well as with a mentor principal, designed to support the principal’s professional and personal development.

Objectives

Ensure that early-career principals receive in-depth coaching support during their first two years

Improve the level of coaching given to all principals and potential principal candidates through professional development, one-on-one mentoring, and professional learning communities

Components / Activities

The program will feature structured modules for each cohort: Targeted APs, first-year principals, second-year principals, and 3+-year principals. This program will be a blended partnership between the district and the National Institute for School Leadership (NISL), a training organization that specializes in executive development. A new position, Director of Leadership, will ensure high standards of implementation fidelity and sustainability of this program (see job responsibilities below). The program includes professional development for all principals and targeted assistant principals who will serve as principal interns.

Role of Director of Leadership

Program Oversight/ Implementation

Coordinate site-based mentor relationship

Organize professional development

Establish documentation and support materials

Ensure program infrastructure, fidelity and sustainability

Professional Development

Train principal using train-the-trainer model in partnership with the National Institute for School Leadership

Establish modules/work sessions

Align the Leadership Development program with other district professional development offerings

Field Work

Meet or contact new principals and perform joint walk-throughs, provide support when needed

Provide coaching feedback

Meet with experienced site-based principals to sustain relationships and align support

Conduct professional development follow-up

Supervise a cohort of principals that are not first-year principals with the LEADs evaluation model

Rationale for Components/Activities With 40 percent of U.S. school principals reaching retirement age in the next decade, the increasing complexity and pressures of the job, and a growing student population, school districts are seeking new ways to support, grow and retain effective principals. One solution has been to provide mentors and principal coaches for new administrators in order to provide direct campus connect for capacity building activities and conversations.

32

Timeline

This priority encompasses 2014 and beyond.

Costs

Personnel costs for Leadership Advancement are salary and benefits for the Director of Leadership. Non-personnel costs include costs for professional development, measurement and evaluation costs for principal and staff surveys, and the cost of principal time in training activities. Costs are further detailed in the graph and table below.

Item 2015-16 Budgeted 2016-17 Estimate 2017-18 Estimate 2018-19 Estimate

Director of Leadership salary and

benefits $130,000 $133,900 $137,917 $142,054

District professional development

$23,000

Summer institute Stipends for

principals to bring Aspiring Leaders & taping new talent

$23,750

Mini-conference, Summer Institute,

NISL materials

$23,750


NISL materials

$23,750


NISL materials

Clerical support 0 $45,000 $46,350 $47,741

Travel for professional development $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000

In-county travel for principal

mentorship support $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500

Materials / equipment for

replacement $1,250 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000

Computer set-up $1,500 $1,000 --- ---

Communications $750 $750 $750 $750

Total $164,000 $212,900 $217,267 $222,795

Return Metrics

These metrics will evaluate principals on feedback from teachers, performance on principal evaluations, and entire school performance. Both the LEADS survey and the LEADS evaluation are measures of scoring principal performance and are within a principal's locus of control. On the other hand, the school grade is more of a cumulative metric that measures some factors outside of a principal's locus of control. Nevertheless, as the instructional leader of a school, a principal should be evaluated on the performance of the school itself, and it is appropriate to incorporate school performance into the evaluation of the principal induction program.



2015-16 Target

2016-17 Target

2017-18 Target

2018-19 Target

Goal: Percent of Principals rated Highly Effective on the LEADS evaluation

41% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68%

Goal: Percent of Principals rated Effective on the LEADS evaluation

59% 40% 38% 36% 34% 32%

Goal: Percent of Assistant Principals rated Highly Effective on the LEADS evaluation

18% 37% 42% 47% 52% 57%

Goal: Percent of Assistant Principals rated Effective on the LEADS evaluation

82% 63% 58% 53% 48% 43%

Goal: Percent of Principals whose FLDOE school grade is a “C” or higher

84% 89% 91% 92% 93% 94%

33

Appendix E: Program Evaluation & Innovation Process

Need for this Program Student achievement depends upon the effectiveness of instructional programs. In 2014, Lake County Schools implemented a clear, standardized process for evaluating operational and academic return on investment (ROI) for promising programs and current initiatives. The district defines the academic ROI of instructional programs as the growth in academic achievement of LCS students. For operational programs, the ROI is expressed in terms of efficiency or effectiveness in conducting the day-to-day operations of the district. The Program Innovation and Evaluation initiative provides a clear process to drive decisions to improve the implementation, continuance or elimination of programs thereby ensuring effective and efficient use of district funds for the most effective programs. This process identifies, evaluates, implements, tracks, and reassesses programs.

Objectives

Provide a framework for rigorously evaluating existing and new programs in order to enable the implementation of programs that will ultimately drive student achievement in the most cost-effective way possible

Implement and culturally embed a standardized set of steps in the program evaluation process, with clearly assigned ownership of actions at each step, and a clear timeline for decision-making

Develop a culture of data-driven decision making through implementation of this process

Components / Activities The process will proceed as follows: At the center of the process is a tool the district designed to measure and compare the cost and operational and academic ROI of selected programs. The Cost/ROI tool was created to evaluate both new and existing programs that are either instructional or operational. It facilitates the projection of comprehensive costs of a program, including direct program costs, ancillary costs, incremental costs due to the use of existing resources, and cost savings attributable to specific programs. The tool supports the tracking of impact evaluation against both a baseline performance level and projected targets. The Program Innovation and Evaluation staff meet with the leaders of instructional priorities and identified programs to develop, monitor and verify performance metrics, associated costs and implementation details and reporting. The staff continues to enhance the system of operation for this initiative. What is the rationale for these components/activities?

The program evaluation and innovation process provides a framework for rigorously evaluating existing and proposed programs to ensure the best return on investment to facilitate student achievement. The district focuses on implementing the program evaluation process with fidelity and culturally embedding a standardized method of work that includes clearly assigned ownership of actions and clear timelines for high-impact decision-making.

Rationale for Components / Activities

This process allows the district to:

Proactively examine promising programs and assess projected impacts on student achievement and operations

34

Gather full program implementation costs

Support fidelity of implementation of programs through rigorous monitoring

Align spending to the district's instructional priorities and Strategic Finance Plan

Compare different programs with similar objectives based on ROI

Timeline All instructional priorities are monitored on an annual basis for evaluation purposes. Additional programs, as identified by the Executive Cabinet, are evaluated as assigned.

Costs


2016-17 Estimated

2017-18 Estimated

2018-19 Estimated

Program Innovation and Evaluation Specialist Salary and Benefits

$87,065 $89,677 $92,367 $95,138

Program Innovation and Evaluation Analyst Salary and Benefits

$71,510 $73,655 $75,865 $78,141

Professional Development- Support $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 Statistical Software 0 $3000 $3000 $3000 In-County Travel $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 Out of County Travel $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 Supplies and Materials $500 $500 $500 $500

Total Cost $168,575 $173,332 $178,232 $183,279

Return Metrics



2015-16 Target

2016-17 Target

2017-18 Target

2018-19 Target

Goal: Number of Program Evaluations of Instructional Priorities

7 7 7 7 7 7

Goal: Program Evaluations on additional high profile/high investment programs

4 5 5 6 7 8

Goal: Percentage of ROI calculations determined to be positive returns

60% TBD 75% 90% 90% 90%

Goal: Percentage of identified performance metrics for monitored programs showing improvement

50% TBD 65% 75% 80% 85%

Goal: Stakeholder satisfaction regarding integrity of evaluation process

100% TBD 100% 100% 100% 100%

Goal: Stakeholder satisfaction related to effectiveness of program monitoring

100% TBD 100% 100% 100% 100%

35

Appendix F: Personalized Learning for Teachers and Leaders

Need Lake County Schools will capitalize on areas of opportunity that optimize time for teachers and leaders to collaborate and engage in meaningful professional learning using a variety of modalities while building capacity at the leadership level for embracing and supporting innovative professional learning on a continuing basis. Lake County Schools recognizes that overall teacher planning time is important. The district has established an ad hoc committee to review bell schedules to maximize both student instructional time and teacher planning time.

Objective

Objective #1: Ensure all teachers have ample time within the school day for collaboration (without sacrificing quality student learning) focused on core instructional work

Objective #2: Provide multi-modal access to high-quality professional development content based on teachers’ needs and student results

Objective #3: Ensure all teachers have frequent opportunities and multiple sources of feedback on their instructional practice

Objective #4: Assess the impact of professional development content and experiences

Components / Activities Objective #1: Ensure all teachers have ample time within the school day for collaboration (without sacrificing quality student learning) focused on core instructional work. The data indicates that teachers need time to collaborate and develop the skills needed to implement the instructional shifts required by the new Florida Standards while also implementing personalized learning for students in the classroom. To address the challenge of teacher time and supports needed for this new way of work, the district focused on school redesign. We optimized resources to provide significant release time during the school day for teachers to collaborate with colleagues, plan effective lessons and use data to determine personalized professional learning needs. We continue to strengthen this component of the system as it will include creating a new system for allocating personnel to schools and recreating master schedules that fit the new allocations. Pilots were launched in 2014-2015 that used PLUS (Professional Learning Updraft Systems) Teams to push into the classroom so core academic teachers can be released for collaborative time. We extended this work to other schools in 2015-16. By the end of the grant initiative we expect that regular collaborative time for core academic teachers will be the norm at all middle and high schools while additionally moving this work to the elementary schools during this same time. Objective #2: Provide multi-modal access to high-quality PD content based on teachers’ needs and student results. Also indicated by the data, teachers need more support in their work preparing lessons and analyzing student work. The time provided through resource optimization for collaborative time for teachers provides the opportunity for effective lesson planning and professional learning driven by the needs of the student work analysis. Teacher and leader empowerment and engagement strengthens ownership of professional learning and is key to increasing effectiveness. We are bringing teachers and leaders together in collaborative sessions that target the Florida Standards through the Lesson Study Cycle using our existing Professional Learning Communities Framework driven by the Literacy Design Collaborative work. We have established a district Math Team to support our middle- and

36

high-school math teachers with content knowledge and pedagogy. We rely on our belief in ECET2 that the most powerful professional learning is job-embedded, collaboration with like colleagues around practice. In addition, we intend to add a focus on professional learning that will support teachers in planning and delivering lessons through blended learning for all middle and high schools. Blended learning is a strategy that can be utilized to help optimize classroom time and master schedule redesign. We are establishing experts in AVID’s WICOR (Writing, Inquiry, Collaboration, Organization and Reading) strategies by participating in AVID’s Summer Institutes. Over time all Lake County Schools will use regular collaborative time to support personalized professional learning for teachers and leaders. Objective #3: Ensure all teachers have frequent opportunities and multiple sources of feedback on their instructional practice. Lake County Schools is incorporating a variety of strategies to give teachers and leaders feedback on their practice including:

Coaching Framework for teachers and leaders

Lesson Study Cycle

Professional Learning Communities

Colleague Circles

Collaborative Time for teachers and leaders

Informal and Formal Observations for teachers and leaders

Learning Walks

Student Perception Surveys

ECET2 Teacher Surveys and Interviews

Focus Group Surveys and Interviews Objective #4: Assess the impact of PD content/experiences As the district provides job-embedded personalized professional learning time for teachers and leaders and structures systems of support for learning, both teachers and leaders have the opportunity to reignite their passion for their work through empowerment. This is a shift in the way of work for the district. To manage this change in culture, professional learning for our district and school leadership teams and teachers leaders is strategic and intentional around implementing this transformation of professional learning redesign. Currently, we are using teacher and leader surveys to assess professional learning participation and experiences. This allows us to ascertain the quality of the professional learning, the interface between learning experience and individual teacher’s and or leader’s goals and the mixture of strategies and structures that have the highest engagement and practical application. This is an area that is continuously being developed as we work with our school leadership teams, teacher leaders and partners in the field.

Rationale for Components / Activities The need to provide personalized support for teachers and leaders to meet the multiple challenges they face with implementation of the new Florida Standards is evident. This instructional priority will allow Lake County Schools an opportunity to integrate a system of supports and personalized professional learning for teachers and leaders that will empower them as they develop more effective practices.

Timeline The innovative Professional Development (iPD) Grant will continue to provide support for the next two years for middle schools and high schools while district funds will support development of the initiative at the elementary school level. Using the Personalized Learning for Teachers and Leaders initiative resources in conjunction with the iPD Grant, a seamless approach to redesigning personalized professional learning in the district will be formed.

37

Following the grant timeline, the Strategic Finance Plan will project funding to support ongoing efforts within the redesigned personalized professional learning system for all levels of educators.

Costs


2016-17 Estimate

2017-18 Estimate

2018-19 Estimate

1 Digital Content Systems Architect* $100,000 $103,000 $106,090 $109,273

11 Florida Standards Teachers for select Middle and High Schools for 196 days @ $55,763 (Salary and Benefits)**

$613,393 $631,795 TBD TBD

Collaborative Funds for Additional Planning/Time for Teachers***

$125,000 $125,000 $100,000 $75,000

Software to support Personalized Learning for Teachers and Leaders****

$115,000 $115,000 $115, 000 $115,000

Total Cost $953,393 $974,795 $321,090 $299,273 * Position approved by the Board on 4/27/2015 and hired on 10/2/2015. ** Continuation of fourth year under consideration to support full implementation of standards-based instruction *** Reflects funding shift to Florida Standards Teachers and a continuation of funding for teacher collaboration at the 2016-2017 amount. **** Currently exploring software alternatives to PD360/Edivate after Program Evaluation recommended discontinuing the program.

Return Metrics

Success of the Personalized Learning for Teachers and Leaders Instructional Priority will center on time within the school day for teacher collaboration, teachers and leaders utilizing multiple modalities for professional learning, culturally embedding the practice of the lesson study cycle within schools, and developing a continuous feedback loop for teachers and leaders at all levels. Detailed metrics for Personalized Learning for Teachers and Leaders are outlined below.



2015-16 Target

2016-17 Target

2017-18 Target

2018-19 Target

Goal: Percent of School Master Schedules Reflect Structured Collaborative Professional Development Time for Teachers

25% 28% 35% 50% 75% 75%

Goal: Percent of Schools Implementing the Lesson Study Cycle through Professional Learning Communities

15% 30% 40% 50% 75% 75%

Goal: Percent of Teachers That Report Professional Development Needs Are Met *

30% 45% 50% 60% 70% 70%

Goal: Percent of Teachers Report Using At Least three (3) Different Modalities That Match Their Professional Development Needs *

40% 73% 75% 77% 79% 81%

Goal: Percent of Florida Standards Teachers Report Support Provided to Students, Teachers and Leadership **

Students 25% 26% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Teachers 60% 54% 65% 70% 70% 70%

Leadership 15% 20% 15% 10% 10% 10%

*Based on MDRC survey data that targeted middle and high schools during the 2014-15 ** FSTs are intended to support teachers and school redesign therefore an adjustment to the metrics to reflect their prescribed duties was warranted.

38

Appendix G: Personalized Learning for Students

Need Throughout the district, LCS students have a wide variety of starting positions in terms of academic achievement. A one-size-fits-all approach does not meet the diverse needs of students. By personalizing instruction in a student-centered classroom, the district can tailor its approach to the academic needs of students to increase student achievement.

Vision / Objective Five strategic goals have been established for personalized learning for students. They are:

1. Encourage student-directed learning

2. Develop and implement learner profiles and individual paths to mastery for each student

3. Establish a system of competency-based progression

4. Establish flexible learning environments

5. Develop a system of accountability and continuous improvement

Components / Activities We have developed a detailed strategic plan for the district for the successful implementation of personalized learning. Our plan calls for a gradual scale-up implementation of 4 to 6 schools per year, with a goal of being fully personalized by 2022. We currently have 5 schools in the launch phase and 9 schools in the pilot/planning phase. Our rolling model calls for: 1) the launch schools to be whole-school implementations of personalized learning over four years; and 2) adding 4 to 6 additional schools each year as new launch schools; and 3) adding 4 to 6 additional schools each year as new planning schools.

Rationale for Components / Activities As the move to personalized learning is transformational, we felt it was important to scale up gradually. In addition, we felt it was important that each school have a level of autonomy in determining the best implementation strategies and timelines for their individual schools. To facilitate schools’ learning process and professional development around personalized learning (PL), funds have been made available to schools so that they can visit other PL schools and districts around the nation and engage personalized learning experts to provide coaching and training for school staff.

Timeline The timeline for implementing personalized learning district-wide is estimated to be eight years. The scale-up calls for 4–6 schools to come onboard each year in two phases: one cohort will be spending a year planning for their implementation while the other cohort begins implementation after completing a planning year. In this way we will be building capacity.


2016-17 Estimated

2017-18 Estimated

2018-19 Estimated

Administrator on Special Assignment to oversee the work Salary and Benefits

$107,000 $110,210 $113,516 $116,922

3 Innovative Learning Specialists for 215 days Salary and Benefits

$181,791 $187,245 $192,862 $198,648

39

PL Program Manager to Co-Lead the District Initiative Grant Funded Grant Funded TBD TBD

Fiscal Assistant Salary and Benefits

Grant Funded Grant Funded $45,000 $46,350

Planning funds for six schools $120,000 $120,000 $102,000 $90,000

Implementation funds for six launch schools (See chart below for detail)

Grant Funded $1,350,000 $2,550,000 $2,280,000

Personalized Learning Launch Funds $500,000 --- --- ---

Technology Systems $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000

Total Cost $1,008,706 $1,847,455 $3,083,378 $2,811,920

LCS is committed to achieving efficiencies through technology in the following ways: For any period of implementation, the program will achieve enough efficiencies to be cost neutral in four years. Therefore, this document refers to the program as being "self-funding" in nature. This projection is based on an estimate from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. For purposes of developing an initial financial model, the district estimates a straight-line schedule of achieving self-funding (0% in year 1, 33% in year 2, 67% in year 3, 100% in year 4). Since implementation of personalized learning will be staggered across a number of years, this self-funding aspect will apply on a school-by-school basis and will not be applicable at a district level. Cohort implementation and funding timeline

Cohort II (11 of 40 Schools)

2016-17 Launch Year 1

2017-18 Launch Year 2

2018-19

School 1 $225,000 $225,000 ---

School 2 $225,000 $225,000 ---

School 3 $225,000 $225,000 ---

School 4 $225,000 $225,000 ---

School 5 $225,000 $225,000 ---

School 6 $225,000 $225,000 ---

Cohort III (17 of 40 Schools)

Launch Year 1 Launch Year 2

School 1

$200,000 $200,000

School 2 $200,000 $200,000

School 3 $200,000 $200,000

School 4 $200,000 $200,000

School 5 $200,000 $200,000

School 6 $200,000 $200,000

Cohort IV (23 of 40 Schools)

Launch Year 1

School 1

$180,000

School 2 $180,000

School 3 $180,000

School 4 $180,000

School 5 $180,000

School 6 $180,000

Total $1,350,000 $2,550,000 $2,280,000

40

In each Cohort, funds will cover technology purchases ($75,000); a site-based PL Facilitator for two years ( $62,500 per year); training and travel. We estimate the launch costs will decrease with each cohort, as we will be developing capacity in the schools and in the district. Projections are calculated with an onboarding rate of six schools per cohort, which keeps us within our timeline of all schools personalized by 2022.

Return Metrics Since the primary goal of personalized learning for students is to improve academic achievement and prepare all Lake County students to be college/career ready, success criteria for the strategies above would include measures that are typically analyzed to determine student achievement, including: growth in TEAM/LEADS evaluations, and measureable increases in student academic achievement and state summative assessments. However, the effect of personalized learning on many of the summative metrics will take a long time to track and assess. Therefore, in these initial years, the district plans to track the following metrics as leading indicators of success:


Estimated 2014-15 Actual

2015-16 Target

2016-17 Target

2017-18 Target

2018-19 Target

Student Feedback on Survey * --- ---

TBD Feb. 2016

--- --- ---

NWEA Student Formative Assessment Scores ** --- --- Baseline TBD

--- --- ---

Goal: Launch Schools – Planned & Consistent Scale-up ***

--- --- 5 6 6 23

Goal: Planning Schools – Planning & Consistent Scale-up

8 8 9 7 6 18

* Researching appropriate survey tool, timeliness of distribution and potential alignment with Personalized Learning for Teachers and Leaders. ** Awaiting contract approval to begin baseline testing. *** Planning year, no schools ready for launch until 2015-16

41

Appendix H: Work Groups

Project Oversight & Management Working Groups

Leadership Team

Community Advisory Group

Communications & Stakeholder Engagement Group

International Baccalaureate

Bell Schedule – Teacher Planning Time – High School Open Enrollment

Instructional Priorities Working Groups

ELL & Struggling Students

Investment in People (Formerly Talent Development Pipeline, which will become a subcommittee)

Teacher Induction/Training for Instructional Coaches Group

Leadership Advancement Group

Program Evaluation and Innovation

Personalized Learning for Teachers & Leaders

Personalized Learning for Students

Realignment Opportunities Working Groups

Self-funding across PD initiatives

School Models

Consolidated Purchasing/Classroom Support

Clerical Staffing

Guidance Counselors

Transportation

Athletic Field Maintenance Care Group

Central Office for District Staff/Consolidated Title I Offices/District Organizational Structure

Other Groups

Superintendent’s Advisory Group – June 10, 2015

General Principals’ Meeting, Strategic Finance Plan Input Session – September 9, 2015

Executive Cabinet, Cabinet and Instructional Priority and Realignment Opportunity Leads Workshop – November 30, 2015

School Board Retreat – December 16, 2015

Superintendent’s Teacher Focus Group – January 14, 2016

strategic finance plan - government finance … county schools (fl) strategic... · leading our...

Documents